▼ -s. 



Wi' ^^' 



.r 






> 






v 



c^ 



-^^i^. 



■>1 



-^v-. 

•s''^ 






i 



-?> 






'„<%ii]l^"'. 










%. 



^^S^% "^ 



''^ 



■I , ^ ^ ' 



.^' 









I: 






^C' '^^ 



.V 



w?\_; 




% >,. .,0' /..^-^..'o \ ^ 



















62d Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, j Report 

2d Session. \ 1 No. 321. 



PROTECTION AND REGULATION OF THE SEAL 
FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 



February 13, 1912. — Committed to the Committee of the Wliole House on the state 
of the Union and ordered to be printed. 



Mr. Flood, from the Committee on Foreign Aflfairs, submitted the 

following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany H. R. 20047.] 

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, in the consideration of the bill 
H. R. 16571, which gives effect to the recent convention between the 
United States and Great Britain, Russia, and Japan, concluded at 
Washington, July 7, 1911, for the protection of fur seals and sea otter 
from being killed while in the waters of the Pacific Ocean north of 30 
degrees of north latitude, agreed to strike out of said bill all that por- 
tion thereof which relates to the killing on land of the surplus young 
males in the herd frequenting the Pribilof Islands, or American herd, 
and to present a separate bill to regulate such land killing by officers 
of the United States Government under the direction of the Secretary 
of Commerce and Labor. 

That committee now reports said bill (H. R. 20047) and recom- 
mends that it be passed. 

In considering the question of land killing the committee has been 
actuated by a desire to give every possible protection to the American 
seal herd and to take every step that will secure the increase and per- 
petuation of that herd. It has not been able to convince itself, how- 
ever, that a judicious and carefully regulated culling out of the surplus 
males at a time when their pelts are commercially valuable, such as 
has been practiced at least during the American occupation of the 
seal islands, ever has or will operate to decrease the species or cause 
it any injury. 

The fur seal is a highly polygamous species. One male has been 
known to fecundate over 100 cows in one season. Two males have 
been known in one summer to serve over 500 cows between them. 
Families consisting of one adult male (or "bull") and 75 females (or 
"cows") are common on the rookeries where these seals breed. At 



2 THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. ^V^ \V^ ,V 

a time when there were thousands of adult males present that could 
not secure any females whatsoever the average ratio between breeding 
males and females was found to be only 1 male to 30 females. 

On the other hand, the births consist of equal numbers of males 
and females. Because of the pol}^gamous habits of these species, not 
more than 1 male out of 30 born is necessary to perpetuate the race. 
The remainder of the males is superfluous and might be destroyed 
without in any way affecting the future of the species. From a stock- 
breeder's standpoint, it would be just as useless to preserve all of the 
superfluous male seals as to save all of the cocks in a flock of chickens, 
all of the bulls in a herd of cattle, or all the stallions in a band of 
horses. The bill provides for a close season in 1912; that only 3-year- 
old males shall be killed thereafter; and that there shall be reserved 
from among the finest and most perfect seals of that age not fewer 
than 2,000 in 1913, 2,500 in 1914, 3,000 in 1915, 3,500 in 1916, 4,000 
each from 1917 to 1921, inclusive, and 5,000 each 3^ear thereafter to 
1921. With the bulls now on the islands this makes 60,000 bulls for 
breeding purposes at the end of this period. A number large enough 
for the greatest number of cows that anyone has claimed that the 
herd would contain at the time the treaty ends. 

An important economic feature enters into this matter. Between 
the ages of 3 and 4 years these surplus male seals have pelts 
which have considerable commercial value. By judicious manip- 
ulation of the market in years past, the price at which the sealskins 
sell has been raised to an average of $40 each. From the sale of 
these pelts millions of dollars have been derived, both in profits to 
those who had leased the privilege of taking these pelts and to the 
Government as royalties from those sldns taken. 

This Government for the last two years has done away with the 
leasing system, has taken these skins itself and marketed them for 
its own account. In these two years alone the net profits to the 
Government derived from the sale of sealskins has amounted to over 
half a million dollars. 

The total cessation of land killing would destroy the market for 
sealskins and cause the price of that skin to drop to an insignificant 
figure. As the primary object of the Government's solicitude in the 
fur-seals is that sooner or later it may derive a handsome profit from 
the sale of these skins, it is a matter of vital importance that the 
high market value of these skins be maintained during the j^ears that 
the herd is being built up by the operation of the treaty abolishing 
pelagic sealing. During the 15 years that the convention abolishing 
sea killing of females will be in force it is estimated that, from the 
taking of the skins of those surplus males not necessary for breeding 
purposes, between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 in revenue can be 
derived by the Government, while the herd can be increased to nearly 
three times its present size. Surely this economic consideration, 
involving the question of millions of dollars of revenue to the Gov- 
ernment, should receive earnest attention. 

These surplus males, if killed at all, must be killed at a time when 
their skins have a commercial value, namely, when they are between 
the ages of 2 and 5 years. After their fourth year the pelt becomes 
heavy and the fur deteriorates, from the standpoint of the garment 
maker, to such a point as to be valueless. It would not do to stop all 
killing for, say, 10 or 15 years, allow the surplus males to grow to 



X:^ THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 3 

^ maturity and then to attempt to kill the animal and sell the skin. 
^ The skin then would be worth nothing and woidd not pay for the cost 
^ of transportation to the market. If Idlled at all, these animals must 
v^ be slaughtered at a time when they are young, when their fur is 
/^ smooth and glossy, and when the hide itself is light in weight and 
,;< easily made into a garment. 

"^ In considering the question of the effect upon the increase of the 
species of killing these surplus males the views of scientists and those 
perfectly familiar with the subject have been taken into account. It 
may be said that of all those who have testified before this committee 
only two persons were found to be opposed to this kiUing of the young 
males, wliile a much larger number of eminent experts have given 
their testimony in favor of a moderate and properly restricted killing. 
Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, was the 
head of a distinguished commission in 1896-1897 that visited the seal 
islands and made an exhaustive study of the seal herd. In the report 
of this commission, made as the result of this investigation, Dr. 
Jordan said: 

Owing to the polygamous habit of the fur seals, the greater part of the male life 
bom is superfluous for breeding purposes. For the 130,000 breeding cows found on 
the rookeries of St. Paul and St. George Islands in the seasori of 1897, 4,418 bulls 
were adequate, or at least out of fully 10,000 adult bulls ready and willing to serve 
harems, only this number were able to obtain them. Therefore only 1 bull in 30 is 
absolutely necessary under present conditions. That this limit could be materially 
lowered without positive danger to the herd is conclusively shown by the history of 
the Russian herd on Bering Island, where the observations of the past three years, 
as detailed by Dr. Stejneger, show that a male fur seal is capable of attending to the 
wants of between 100 and 200 cows. 

Moreover, the removal of the superfluous male life is not only possible but is really 
beneficial to the herd. As already indicated, the only deaths among adult bulls and 
cows discovered upon the rookeries of the islands resulted from the struggles of the 
bulls among themselves to obtain possession of the cows. In the death of young 
pups also this fighting and struggling of the bulls is a small but by no means insig- 
nificant cause of loss. In 1896 the great early mortality among nursing pups was 
wrongly ascribed to the tramj^ling of the fighting bulls. But while the more com- 
plete and satisfactory investigation of 1897 shows another and more important cause, 
there still remains a considerable loss from this source. This loss is now insignificant 
compared with what it was in the wild state of the herd. When the number of adult 
males and females was practically equal, the destruction both among the cows and 
among the pups must have beeii enormous. 

Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biolog}^. United States 
National Museum, who has spent a number of years on the Russian 
seal islands studying seal life, and who was a member of the Jordan 
Commission of 1896-97, makes the following statement: 

It was the vmanimous opinion of the American-British Commission (Dr. D. S. 
Jordan, F. A. Lucas, L. Stejneger, Prof. d'Arcy W. Thompson, J. M. Macouu, and 
G. E. H. Barrett-Hamilton) that the proportion of 1 bull to 30 cows was so excessive 
that a number of bulls were ordered killed off. The islands are at present (1897) 
grossly overstocked with bulls, and yet the average size of the harem is about 30 cows. 
(Treasury Doc. 1994, p. 22.) 

The present ratio of 1 to 40 is consequently a great improvement and, even if it 
should fall as low as 1 to 50, or even 1 to 60, as it may in 1905, no alarm need be felt, 
as 1 bull to 50 cows is probably the most satisfactory ratio to be had. 

That close killing of male? on land may have had an influence is utterly denied. 
The whole reasoning involved in such an explanation rest< upon the fallacy of the 
assumption that airthe male seals "haul out" on land each year. If all the seals 
"hauled out" and the killing were as close as alleged, there would be nothing but 
yearlings the next year, and we know, of course, that such is not the case. I need not 
enlai^e upon this "theme here, but will only quote the expert commission of 1896-97 
to the following effect: "It is, indeed, to be doubted whether at any time the killing 



4 THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 

on the islandH could by any possibility be made close enough to endanger the supply 
of bulls, etc." 

One of the British commissioners, Mr. Barrett-Hamilton, who in his report for 1896 
held similar views with regard to the scarcity of bulls on North Rookery, Bering 
Island, abandoned them later after his additional experience of 1897. 

PVom what I have stated above, it will be seen that I regard the status of the fiu-- 
seal herd on the Pribilof Islands to be as satisfactory as under the present circum- 
stances (i. e., continued, though diminishing, pelagic sealing) it could possibly be. 
My own policy, therefore, would be to let well enough alone. 

I realize, however, that the department may wish to be "on the safe side," and in 
that case I can see no special reason why the general agent of the islands should not 
be instructed to see to it that of the older bachelor seals a number satisfactory to him 
be exempt from being killed in the drives. 

On the other hand there should be no restriction as to the killing of the smaller 
bachelor seals. Only a minor proportion of these "haul out," and the only result 
of their killing is that the company anticipates part of next year's catch and gets smaller 
skins than it otherwise would. It should, therefore, be left entirely to the company 
to decide how small skins they want to take, as the company itself will be the only 
sufferer. 

The taking of these young bachelors can not, by any possibility, affect the status 
of the herd, and from the standpoint of the Government must be regarded as desirable, 
in so much as there will be that many seals less for the pelagic sealers to prey upon. 
The company, therefore, might properly be encoiu-aged to take as many yearling 
males as they can. * * * From what I have explained in the two foregoing 
chapters, it may be inferred that I am opposed to any stoppage of the killing of seals 
on land. 

Dr. F. A. Lucas, now curator in chief of the American Museum of 
Natural History in New York, as a member of the Jordan Commis- 
sion of 1896-97, reported as follows on this subject: 

American Museum of Natural History, 

New York, August 17, 1911. 

Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of August 14, with its 
accompanying documents, in which you ask for my opinion regarding the merits of 
House resolution 277, suspending thekilling of fur seals on the seal islands ofAlaska 
for 15 years. 

In response to this, I wish to say that I regard such suspension of killing as abso- 
lutely unnecessary as well as impractical and unscientific. I have never seen the 
slightest reason to modify my view that up to the present time the killing on land 
has had no effect in diminishing the numbers of the fur-seal herd ; and there is no reason 
why a carefully regulated killing should do so in the future. 

The suspension of land killingls impractical, because it would result in the absolute 
waste of many thousands of sealskins and many hundreds of thousands of dollars; 
this, too, at a' time when, by treaty, Japan and Canada are to have a share in the 
proceeds of seals killed by the United States. Incidentally, I would say that in a 
period of 15 years every seal now living would die from old age or from other natural 
causes. Furthermore, "it would seem that such suspension would be a direct attempt 
to evade our treaty obligations to Japan and Canada. 

The cessation of killing is unscientific for the following reasons: We have for the 
first time an opportunity to test the conditions of the seal herd when unaffected by 
the attack of pelagic sealers, and it is of the utmost importance, for the making of 
future treaties and regulations, that we should know the exact facts in the case. The 
arbitrary suspension of killing for a period of 15 years would be extremely unwise, as 
we know, from observations of seals made on Robben Island and of sea elephants on 
Kerguelen Island, that a seal herd that has been reduced almost to extinction will so 
recover in from 5 to 10 years as to yield a large number of killable males. 

Finally, as has so often been stated, there is not the slightest danger of exterminating 
animals like the fur seals where their breeding grounds are guarded. How much less 
is the danger when the actual killing can be regulated year by year according to the 
numbers present. 

The sole suggestion I would make would be that in the event that pelagic sealing is 
actually ended, a smaller number of males be killed for two or three years to come. 
Jkit this is a matter for the fur-seal and advisory boards to consider. 
I remain, very respectfully, yours, 

F. A. Lucas. 



THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA, 5 

Dr. F, W. True, for many years head curator of biology, United 
States National Museum, now assistant secretary of the Smith- 
sonian Institution, and special investigator on the seal islands in 
1895, says: 

It does not appear to me that any serious concern need be felt as regards the condi- 
tion of the herd in 1903 and the prospects for the immediate future. It appears that 
in the breeding herd in 1903 there was approximately 1 bull to 42 cows. Should the 
increase in bulls and increase in cows continue in the same ratio in 1904 as in 1903, 
there would be approximately 1 bull to 54 cows. I think that the decrease in bulls 
might proceed until there was only 1 bull to 100 cows without menacing the welfare 
of the herd. If this view is correct, there is time for many years' observations before 
it would be imperatively necessary to take steps for the preservation of the herd from 
extinction. 

The following extracts are taken from the report of the Bering Sea 
fur-seal investigations, by David Starr Jordan, assisted by Leonard 
Stejneger, Frederic Augustus Lucas, and George Arcliibald Clark, 
1897. (Second Preliminary Report, Treasury Doc. 1994). 

The investigations of the present season have only served to confirm the conclusion 
reached last year, that killing, as practiced on land, has no connection whatever with 
the decline of the herd. Such killing is, and has been for half a centmy, confined to 
superfluous males, whose removal is a benefit rather than an injury. It would have 
been better for the herd if land killing had not been limited by the modus vivendi. 
The rookeries to-day are overstocked with adult bulls, which in their struggles to gain 
possession of the females tear them to pieces and trample their offspring. 

The only way in which land killing could injuriously affect the herd is through a 
reduction of the male life to a point below that required for propagation. The records 
of the islands show that there was never anything approaching a dearth of breeding 
bulls on the rookeries. The mere fact that 14 years after the islands came into the 
possession of the United States approximately 100,000 seals were taken each year 
without difficulty shows that the usual birth rate was maintained. That the land kill- 
ing was not connected with the decline of the herd at its beginning — about the years 
1882-1885 — may reasonably be inferred from the fact that in the years 1876-77 only 
175,000 males were killed, whereas the total for 1875 and 1878 was 215,000, and for the 
five years preceding and succeeding a like proportionate number was taken. (This 
included pups taken for food in the fall.) The 40,000 males thiis saved out in 1876-77 
were of breeding age in 1882, and were still in then prime in 1885 and the subsequent 
years of decline. 

Dr. Charles H. Townsend, dh-ector of the New York Aquarium, for 
many years naturalist on the Fisheries steamer Albatross, member of 
the Fur-Seal Commission of 1896 and 1897, and for nine seasons special 
investigator on the seal islands, sa3^s : 

My last visit to the islands was in the year 1900, when the number of surplus of 
nonbreeding males was much larger than it is now. At that time and for years before 
the number of large nonbreeding males in the rear of the breeding grounds was so large 
that I advised a closei degree of killing by the lessees than had been the custom. The 
slaughter of females by pelagic sealers had been for years very heavy and the relative 
nuniber of breeding males was on the increase. The lessees were then taking only the 
skins of what we were accustomed to regard as 3-year-olds, weighing perhaps 9 pounds 
or over. As the younger class of males, unlike the breeding male.-:, wander away from 
the islands at times tofeed, I advised that the lessees be permitted to take the smaller 
4-year-oids. This was for the double purpose of increasing the catch by the lessees 
and decreasing the sea catch. This has naturally resulted in lessening the relative 
number of nonbreeding males. 

I am well acquainted with tha present Government agents on the islands, having 
had them associated with me for several seasons while making the annual counts of 
both male and female seals present. I accept the figures which they furnish, knowing 
that they come from conscientious and careful observers. 

Your statistics show that there is still a margin of over 500 young idle bulls. This 
surplus has occurred naturally, and shows that the policy of close killing of males has 
been a safe one. 

As this surplus is decreasing from year to year, the time has evidently come to make 
provision for the saving of moie breeding males. I would advise that the number taken 



6 THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 

by the lessees annually be curtailed and that the catch on land consist, as in former 
years, of practically 3-year-olds; it may be possible to add to this number a few of the 
larger 2-year-oIds; certainly none of the larger size, i. e., those whose skins weigh over 
9 pounds, should be taken. 

Your statistics do not show what proportion of the land catch consisted of seals 
over 3 years old. Your agents can furnish you that information. 

Indeed, if you wish to secure an immediate increase in the number of sm-plus 
males, you might restrict the catch absolutely to 3-year-olds. This will cover the num- 
ber required for food, and will give the lessees a chance to continue operations for 
two or three years on a small scale. 

I am not willing to admit that the danger point is reached until all idle bulls adjacent 
to the rookeries disappear. 

A complete cessation of killing would remedy such a condition very rapidly, but 
in order that your department may be provided against criticism, I would counsel 
an immediate curtailment in about the manner above described. A total cessation 
of killing would increase the number of males more rapidly than is necessary, and 
would simply add an important number of valuable male skins to the pelagic catch. 

As above stated, as long as there is a surplus of any kind the breeding grounds are 
safe. If there were any lack of adult males in the rookeries the so-called half bulls 
adjacent to the breeding grounds would at once be absorbed by the rookeries. 

This subject has received the most thorough study at different times during the last 
dozen years at the hands of the foremost biologists of this country, spending months on 
the islands. I don't believe that the natural history of any wild animal of commercial 
importance is as well known as that of the fur seal. 

The diminution of the fur seal is due to pelagic sealing. It is Avorse than idle to 
attribute it in any way to oiu: management of the islands. 

I am not in sympathy with the measures set forth in the Senate bill referred to. 
It is not necessary to entirely cease killing males on land, for the reasons stated above. 
I would not for asingle instant be party to any proposed killing of females. It would 
be an utterly immoral proceeding. We have no right to destroy the soiu-ce of supply 
of anything useful to man simply because we can not control all the output. 

Negotiations looking toward the cessation of pelagic sealing is the only logical and 
moral cure for the decrease of the seal herd. The killing of females on the islands 
must never be permitted. (Townsend, in letter to F. H. Hitchcock, Mar. 7, 1904.) 

George A. Clark, secretary, Stanford University; secretary fur- 
seal commissions of 1896 and 1897; and special investigator (for the 
Government) on the seal islands in 1909, says: 

I do not see that Mr. Elliott's contention that the land killing has yet endangered 
the breeding herd, or is likely to in the near future, is worthy of serious considera- 
tion. The very fact that the herd has supplied a quota of from 20,000 to 15,000 
skins each year since 1896 is in itself proof that there has been no lack of breeding 
males for the rookeries. That there should be a decline in the quota must be con- 
ceded, but the cause of this is naturally to be sought in the killing of breeding females, 
with the attendant loss of young through starvation and otherwise due to pelagic seal- 
ing. (Clark in letter to Hitchcock, Dec. 30, 1903.) 

No naturalist has enjoyed better opportunities for studying fur-seal problems than 
has Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology in the United States National 
Museum. After living for several years on the Commander Islands, where he care- 
fully studied the Russian seal rookeries, he again returned to those islands in 1897 
as a member of the fiu--seal commission and made very exhaustive investigations on 
the rookeries and hauling grounds. He also visited and carefully stiidied the Japanese 
seal rookeries and our own seal islands. No one is better qualified by ability as a 
biologist or by experience to speak authoritatively on the various fur-seal questions. 

From Dr. Stejneger's official report on the rookeries of the Comman- 
der Islands, season of 1897, page 16, in speaking of the action of the 
Russian managers of the Pribilof Islands in 1835, wjien they pro- 
hibited all land killing of males under the mistaken idea that thereby 
they could increase the species, and an identical action of the American 
Government in dealing with the same herd in 1891-1893, says: 

What was the result? A single additional female on the rookeries? No; loss to 
the lessees and the Government of the bachelors spared; a corresponding gain to the 
pelagic sealers; a deplorable superabundance of bulls on the Pribilof rookeries, and 
numerous pups trampled to death soon after their birth. America has thus paid 
very dearly for her blunder. Are the Russians going to repeat it? 



-P-tr 7A 



THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 



Edwin W. Sims, United States attorney for northern district of 
Illinois, Solicitor Department of Commerce and Labor, and special 
investigator on the seal islands in 1906, says: 

That the decrease in seal life on the Pribilof Islands is due solely to pelagic sealing 
can not be seriously questioned. "Owing to the polygamous habit of fur seals," 
states the report of the Jordan Commission, "the greater part of the male life born is 
superfluous for breeding purposes. For the 130,000 breeding cows found on the rook- 
eries of St. Paul and St. George Islands in the season of 1897, 4,418 bulls were adequate, 
or at least out of fully 10,000 bulls ready and willing to serve harems only this number 
were able to obtain them. Therefore, only one bull in thirty is absolutely necessary 
under present conditions. That this limit could be materially lowered without posi- 
tive danger to the herd, is conclusively shown by the history of the Russian herd on 
Bering Island, where the observations of the past three years, as detailed by Dr. 
Stejne'^er, show that a male fur seal is capable of attending to the wants of between 100 
and 200 cows." (Report of Fur Seal Investigations, 1896-97, pt. 1, p. 119.) 

These quotations might be multiphed to show the behef of these 
gentlemen that abstention of land kilhng of surplus males is not an 
advantage to the herd, but is a positive detriment in that it increases 
the fighting amongst the adult bulls, causes an increase in the death 
rate through the crushing of the newly born, and the tearing of cows 
to pieces in endeavoring to snatch them from other harems, and 
involves a great money loss to the Government represented by the 
value of the pelts which could have been taken. Enough has been 
given, however, to show that such action on the part of this Govern- 
ment would be useless and without reason. 

On the other hand, as has been stated, the only persons who oppose 
land kilhng are Messrs. Henry W. Elhott and Dr. W. T. Hornaday. 
The comniittee has not been" bhnd to the fact that the former, Mr. 
Elhott, has for vears urged an aggressive campaign against the prac- 
tice of kilhng seals on land, and in urging his contention has shown 
such a deviation in his views as to make him an unsafe adviser. Dr. 
Hornaday, it develops, has never been upon the seal islands, and 
therefore has not had that opportunity to equip himself with facts 
gathered from actual observation as would make him a competent 
witness on the subject. 

From all this, the committee must conclude that land kilhng ot 
seals not required as breeders, properly regulated and safeguarded 
by the assurance of an ample supply of young males to survive to 
serve the females, is not only iustifiable but expedient. It has taken 
into view the experience of the Russians when in 1835 they stopped 
the kilhng of female seals on land, and increased the herd vastly in 
a few years while at the same time kilhng a hmited number annually 
of young seals. It has considered that the abstention from killing 
these seals in any numbers by our Government in 1891-1893 did not 
in any way increase the number of breeding seals but merely pro- 
vided thousands of surplus and idle adult bulls, whose skins were 
valueless, whose presence was a positive detriment, and which died 
finally of old age without ever having had a female consort. From 
all these considerations it feels lustified in reporting this bill which, 
without absolutely abolishing land killing, curtails it within limits 
that leave no possible ground for fear of the safety of the herd, now that 
pelagic sealing, which has been the sole cause of the great decrease in 
the herd during the last 20 years, will cease, and provides that before 
any killing whatsoever is done on land, a breeding reserve from the 
finest and most vigorous young males be estabUshed and thereafter 
rendered safe from all killing on land. 

o 



-C^SC^;. \,^' :X:' "^Z -^s^ %<^ 






-^ 



;^'?^ 









^.^ 



.■^c^^^^* -^ 



X"^ 






#: 



O " O ^ ^tP 



,-V 



^. ^^ 






^<^^^^ 



. °^i^' 












I?/ 






.-h- 



,0- 



^-■'^ -r^. 



^ 

-4 O 






.f^.^^ 



V , ^' 







•^* 






,A^^ 



.-Jv 



■y :^^f/h{ 










- ^ .r 






.V 



':^^^'^'^~^/ . '^^ '■<^ 












x^ '^.>. 



.Hq.. 



^0■ 



.*' 



' .V 




-^0 • M^^s^ O V 




-^^o^ 






^^^ .: 



,^/0^ 



To ■<> <^' 



.^•^ v:^: 






-;^^^^^^' 






^-^"^ <-<^.V^^/*^<:..,.,^^ 







